Presenting a live 90‐minute teleconference with interactive Q&A Drafting Estate Defective Trusts:  Income Reallocation, Basis Step‐Up,  Appreciation, Gift and State Death Tax Issues  TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014 11ppmm EEaasstteerrnn || 1122ppmm CCeennttrraall || 1111aamm MMoouunnttaaiinn || 1100aamm PPaacciiffiicc Today’s faculty features: AAllvviinn JJ. GGoollddeenn, SShhaarreehhoollddeerr, IIkkaarrdd GGoollddeenn JJoonneess, AAuussttiinn, TTeexx. Edwin P. Morrow, III, Esq., Senior Wealth Specialist, Key Private Bank Wealth Advisory Services, Dayton, Ohio The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10. The Optimal Basis Increase and Income Tax Efficiency Trust Exploiting Opportunities to Maximize Basis, Lessen Income Taxes and Improve Asset Protection for Married Couples after ATRA (or: why you’ll learn to love the Delaware Tax Trap) (this version updated June 2014)1   By Edwin P. Morrow III, J.D., LL.M. (tax) I. Problems with Traditional AB Trust Design & the Lure of Portability 1 II. Marital Trusts – not as simple a solution as you think 9 a. Clayton QTIP – advantages over disclaimer planning b. Advantages of GPOA marital over QTIP? Drawbacks to both c. Techniques to adapt ordinary bypass trusts to increase basis III. Why Optimal Basis Increase Trusts (OBITs) are Superior to AB Trusts 17 a. Formula General Powers of Appointment b. Application to States with Separate Estate Tax c. Drafting GPOAs to Keep Fidelity to Plan and Asset Protection d. Exploiting the Delaware Tax Trap e. Comparing LPOAs & Delaware Tax Trap to Using Formula GPOAs IV. Busting Disclaimer Myths – Using OBITs w/ Disclaimer Based Planning 46 a. How a spouse can retain LPOAs/GPOAs in trusts post-disclaimer V. Doubling or Increasing the Basis Step Up at First or Other Deaths 48 a. Transmutation Agreements and Alaska/TN Community Property Trusts b. Joint GPOA or Joint Exemption Step up Trusts (“JESTs”); IRC §1014 c. “Naked” GPOAs, Crummey OBITs and Upstream Basis Planning 60 VI. Asset Protection Strategies Opened Up by Increased Exclusion 61 a. SLATs and ILITs with OBIT Clauses and de facto reversions VII. Application of OBIT Techniques to Existing Irrevocable Trusts 64 a. Using existing LPOAs to trigger §2041(a)(3) for basis increase b. Non-Judicial Settlement Agreements, Reformations, Decantings, etc VIII. Ongoing Income & Surtax Planning for Irrevocable Non-Grantor Trusts 73 a. IRC §678(a) – Using Mallinckrodt/Beneficiary-Defective Grantor Trusts b. Using §643 Regs to Permit Capital Gains to Pass Out w/DNI on K-1 c. Using Lifetime Limited Powers of Appointment to Spray Income d. IRC §642(c) – Seizing Above the Line Charitable Deductions in Trust e. DINGs, NINGs, OINGs – Not just for state income tax avoidance (or, How to get an above the line tax deduction for annual exclusion gifts to your kids) IX. Summary – also see attached Comparison Charts 99 Appendix – frequently cited statutes, glossary of acronyms, author bio, sample clauses, proposed statutory amendment to state rule against perpetuities law 1 Portions of this outline were presented at other CLEs 2011-2013 and were published in Trusts and Estates (Dec. 2012) and Leimberg LISI Estate Planning Newsletter or CCH Estate Planning Review. © 2011-2014 Edwin P. Morrow III – Contact: [email protected], or [email protected]. See this website for further updates. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2436964 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2436964 Part I – New Problems with Traditional AB Trust Design and Adapting to Portability     “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.  It is  the one that is the most adaptable to change.” – Charles Darwin     For many taxpayers, the traditional trust design for married couples is now obsolete.    This article will explore better planning methods to maximize basis increase for married  couples (and, for future generations), exploit the newly permanent “portability” provisions,  maximize adaptability to future tax law, enable better long‐term income tax savings and  improve asset protection over standard “I love you Wills” and over standard AB trust  planning.  Primarily, this article focuses on planning for married couples whose estates are  under $10.5 million, but many of the concepts apply to those with larger estates as well.    First, we’ll describe the main income tax problems with the current design of most  trusts in light of portability and the new tax environment – and problems with more simplified  “outright” estate plans (sophisticated practitioners should skip this section).  In Part II, we’ll  describe potential solutions to the basis issue, including the use of various marital trusts (and  the key differences between them), and why these may also be inadequate.  In Part III, we’ll  explore how general and limited powers of appointment and the Delaware Tax Trap can  achieve better tax basis adjustments than either outright bequests or typical marital or bypass  trust planning.  I will refer to any trust using these techniques as an Optimal Basis Increase  Trust (“OBIT”).  In Part IV, we will discuss how these techniques accommodate disclaimer  based planning (or disclaimers from lack of planning).  Parts V and VI divert to the “double  step up at first death” techniques and ancillary asset protection considerations.  Part VII  discusses the tremendous value of applying OBIT techniques to pre‐existing irrevocable trusts.   Lastly, in Part VIII, we’ll discuss various methods to ensure better ongoing income tax  treatment of irrevocable trusts – not just neutralizing the negatives of trust income taxation,  but exploiting loopholes and efficiencies unavailable to individuals.   I will refer to these two  1 groups of techniques taken together as an Optimal Basis Increase and Income Tax Efficiency  Trust, features of which are summarized in the attached chart in the appendix.2    Responding to the Portability Threat ‐‐ and Opportunity  The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of  2010 (“2010 Tax Act”) introduced a profound change to estate planning that was recently  confirmed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (“ATRA”).  Section 303 of the 2010 Tax  Act, entitled “Applicable Exclusion Amount Increased by Unused Exclusion Amount of  Deceased Spouse”, is commonly known as “portability”.3  ATRA recently made this provision  permanent, along with a $5,000,000 exemption for estate, gift and generation skipping  transfer tax, adjusted for inflation (even with low inflation, it has already increased to  $5,250,000).4    The concept of portability is simple: the surviving spouse gets any unused estate tax  exclusion of the deceased spouse provided the Form 706 is properly filed.  While it does have  various flaws and quirks, portability goes quite far to correct a basic injustice that would  otherwise occur when the beneficiaries of a couple with no bypass trust planning pay  hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more in estate tax than the beneficiaries of a couple  with the same assets who die without any trust planning.  Portability has been described as both the “death knell” of the AB Trust5 as well as a  “fraud upon the public”.6  Ubiquitous popular financial press articles now refer to the  “dangers” of traditional AB trust planning or the “death of the bypass trust”.  While these  charges have some surface justification, they all fail to see the tremendous income tax and  asset protection opportunities opened up to such trusts by the new law – if trusts are properly  adapted.  2 No trademark claimed, “Super-Duper Charged Credit Shelter Trust” was apparently unavailable… 3 Section 303 of Public Law 111-312, known as the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 4 Rev. Proc. 2013-15 – it will increase to $5.34 million in 2014 5 E.g. “AB Trust can be hazardous to your health”, “Serious tax consequences to AB Trust owners” “Portability Threatens Estate Planning Bar”, “Is it time to bypass the bypass trust for good?”, and dozens more 6 Frequent Trusts and Estates author Clary Redd at May 2011 Advanced Trust Planning CLE, Dayton, Ohio - to be fair, he made this comment before the provision was made permanent. 2 The lure of portability and a large exemption is indeed a siren song for some married  taxpayers to avoid trusts.  Like Odysseus, we should listen to it despite of our misgivings.  The  new exemption level, coupled with the advantages of portability, eliminates what was  previously the most easily quantifiable reasons to do trust planning – saving estate tax ‐ for  the vast majority of taxpayers.  More than that, however, the new tax environment seemingly  deters taxpayers from using trusts through significant income tax disparities, despite the many  non‐tax reasons for using them.    What’s wrong with the traditional AB trust?      1) No Second “Step Up” in Basis for the Bypass Trust Assets for the Next Generation.    Imagine John leaves his wife Jane $3 million in a bypass trust and Jane outlives him 10  years.  Over that time the income is spent but the fair market value has doubled to $6  million.  Jane has her own $3 million in assets.  At Jane’s death, their children inherit assets  in the bypass trust with only $3.5 million in basis.  Had John left his assets to her outright  or to a differently designed trust and Jane elected to use her Deceased Spousal Unused  Exclusion Amount (DSUEA), heirs would receive a new step up in basis to $6 million,  potentially saving them $750,000 or more!7      2) Higher Ongoing Income Tax.  Any income trapped in a typical bypass or marital trust  over  $11,950  is  probably  taxed  at  rates  higher  than  the  beneficiary’s,  unless  the  beneficiary  makes  over  $400,000  ($450,000  married  filing  jointly)  taxable  income.   Including the new Medicare surtax, this might be 43.4% for short‐term capital gains and  7 Of the $3 million original basis, this assumes $500,000 is added due to income or gain realized over time (increasing basis), over the loss in basis due to depreciation or realized losses (which decrease basis), creating $2.5 million unrealized gain times a hypothetical 30% combined federal (23.8%) and state (net 6.2%) long term capital gains tax – this may be higher if you consider 28% rate for collectibles, or if the assets were depreciable property, one might look at the depreciation lost and the ordinary income that could have been offset by the extra basis, which might drive this estimated loss to beneficiaries even higher (though you would have to back out for present value). Of course, if heirs never sell the property (and depreciation does not apply) and hold until death, losses resulting from decreased basis would be non-existent. In short, it’s a rough “guesstimate”. As discussed later herein, some assets do not receive a new basis even if in the decedent’s estate, some assets receive a basis not based on the fair market value at date of death. IRC §§691(c), 1014, 2032, 2032A, and some receive de facto step up (Roth IRA, insurance) 3 ordinary income and 23.8% for long‐term capital gains and qualified dividends.  This is a  staggering differential for even an upper‐middle class beneficiary who might be subject to  only 28% and 15% rates respectively.    3) Special assets can cause greater tax burden in trust.  Assets such as IRAs, qualified  plans,  deferred  compensation,  annuities,  principal  residences,  depreciable  business  property, qualifying small business stock and S corporations are more problematic and  may get better income tax treatment left outright to a surviving spouse or to a specially  designed trust.  Retirement plan assets left outright to a spouse are eligible for longer  income tax deferral than assets left in a bypass trust, even if trust makes it through the  gauntlet of “see‐through trust” rules and the minefield of planning and funding trusts with  “IRD”  (income  in  respect  of  a  decedent)  assets.8    Other  assets,  such  as  a  personal  residence, have special capital gains tax exclusions or loss provisions if owned outright or  in a grantor trust.9  Ownership of certain businesses requires special provisions in the trust  that  are  sometimes  overlooked  in  the  drafting,  post‐mortem  administration  and/or  election stages.10     Yet outright bequests are not nearly as advantageous as using a trust.  The best  planning should probably utilize an ongoing trust as well as exploit portability, which will be  discussed in the next section.      Why not just skip the burdens of an ongoing trust?11  Here’s a quick baker’s dozen:     8 For a checklist of reasons why to use a trust and drafting and administration issues to consider if you do name a trust as beneficiary, email the author for separate CLE outline, comprehensive checklist and related articles. Also, see Sal LaMendola’s excellent comparison of IRA/trust options for second marriage situations in Estate Planning for Retirement Plan Owners in Second (or Later) Marriages - http://www.michbar.org/probate/pdfs/summer13.pdf 9 IRC §121, discussed further in Part VIII of this outline, page 72 10 For S Corp qualification, including QSST and ESBT, see IRC §1361 et seq., for small business stock exclusion and rollovers, see IRC §1202 and §1045, for losses on qualifying small business stock, see IRC §1244 11 I will avoid the probate/non-probate revocable trust debate, since probate costs and fees will vary from state to state. A bypass or marital trust might be a testamentary trust. 4 1) A trust allows the grantor to make certain that the assets are managed and distributed  according to his/her wishes, keeping funds “in the family bloodline”.  Sure, spouses can  agree not to disinherit the first decedent’s family, but it happens all the time – people  move away, get sick and get remarried – the more time passes, the more the likelihood of  a surviving spouse remarrying or changing his or her testamentary disposition.12     2) Unlike a trust, assets  distributed outright have no asset protection from outside  creditors (unless, like an IRA or qualified plan, the asset is protected in the hands of the  new owner) ‐ whereas a bypass trust is ordinarily well‐protected from creditors;    3) Unlike a trust, assets distributed outright have no asset protection from subsequent  spouses  when  the  surviving  spouse  remarries.    Property  might  be  transmuted  or  commingled to be marital/community property with new spouse.  If it is a 401(k) or other  ERISA plan, it might be subject to spousal protections for the new spouse (which cannot be  cured via prenup, and become mandatory after a year of marriage).13  Most states also  have spousal support statutes which require a spouse to support the other ‐ and there is  no distinction if it is a second, third or later marriage.   Also, most states have some form  of spousal elective share statutes that could prevent a surviving spouse from leaving  assets to children to the complete exclusion of a new spouse;    4)  Unlike a trust, assets left outright save no STATE estate or inheritance tax unless a  state amends its estate tax system to allow similar DSUEA elections (don’t hold your  breath – none have yet).  This savings would be greater in states with higher exemptions  and higher rates of tax, such as Washington State (20% top rate) or Vermont (16% top tax  rate), both with $2 million exemptions.  Assuming growth from $2 million to $3 million  and a 16% state estate tax rate, that savings would be nearly $500,000!  12 A contract to make a will may offer a tempting solution, but there are significant problems with those that exceed the scope of this paper, such as triggering a prohibited transaction or violating the exclusive benefits rule as to retirement plan assets or disqualifying assets from marital deduction, not to mention various practical enforcement complexities 13 See the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, IRC §401(a)(11), IRC §417(d)(1), Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(20), Q&A 28 5 5) Unlike  a  bypass  trust,  income  from  assets  left  outright  cannot  be  “sprayed”  to  beneficiaries in lower tax brackets, which gets around gift tax but more importantly for  most  families  can  lower  overall  family  income  tax  –  remember,  the  0%  tax  rate  on  qualified dividends and long‐term capital gains is still around for lower income taxpayers!    6) The Deceased Spousal Unused Exclusion Amount (DSUEA), once set, is not indexed for  inflation, whereas the Basic Exclusion Amount (the $5 million) is so adjusted after 2011  ($5.25 million in 2013).  The growth in a bypass trust remains outside the surviving  spouse's estate. This difference can matter tremendously where the combined assets  approximate $10.5 million and the surviving spouse outlives the decedent by many years,  especially if inflation increases and/or the portfolio achieves good investment returns;     7) The DSUEA from the first deceased spouse is lost if the surviving spouse remarries  and survives his/her next spouse’s death (even if last deceased spouse’s estate had no  unused amount and/or made no election).  This result, conceivably costing heirs $2.1  million  or  more  in  tax,  restrains  remarriage  and  there  is  no  practical  way  to  use  a  prenuptial (or postnuptial) agreement to get around it;14     8)  There is no DSUEA or “portability” of the GST exemption.  A couple using a bypass  trust can exempt $10.5 million or more from estate/GST forever, a couple relying on  portability alone can only exploit the surviving spouse’s $5.25 million GST exclusion.  This  is  more  important  when  there  are  fewer  children,  and  especially  when  these  fewer  children are successful (or marry successfully) in their own right.  For example, a couple  has a $10.5 million estate and leaves everything outright to each other (using DSUEA),  then to a trust for an only child.  Half will go to a GST non‐exempt trust (usually with a  general power of appointment), which can lead to an additional $5.25 million added to  14 This is not to say that prenuptial agreements should not address DSUE and portability – they should. See Karibjanian and Law, Portability and Prenuptials: A Plethora of Preventative, Progressive and Precautionary Provisions, 53 Tax Management Memorandum 443 (12/3/12) 6 that child’s estate – perhaps needlessly incurring more than $2 million in additional estate  tax.      9) Unlike a bypass trust, portability requires the executor to timely and properly file an  estate tax return to exploit the exclusion, and is irrevocable once elected.15  This may  require  opening  a  probate  simply  to  appoint  an  executor.16    This  is  easy  for  non‐ professional executor/trustees to overlook.  The IRS is not authorized to grant exceptions  or extensions for reasonable cause, though it is still open whether 9100 relief might be  available if the estate value was under the threshold filing requirement (e.g. gross estate  under $5.25 million);    10) Unlike a bypass trust, outright bequests cannot be structured to better accommodate  incapacity or government benefits (e.g. Medicaid) eligibility planning;17    11) A bypass trust can exploit the serial marriage loophole.  Example:  John Doe dies  leaving his wife Jane $5.25 million in a bypass trust.  She remarries and with gift‐splitting  can now gift $10.5 million tax‐free.  If husband #2 dies using no exclusion – Jane can make  the DSUEA election and have up to $10.5 million Applicable Exclusion Amount (AEA), even  with the $5.25 million in the bypass trust John left her, sheltering over $15.75 million  (three exclusion amounts, not adjusting for inflation increases) for their children without  any complex planning, not even counting growth/inflation.  Had John left his estate to  Jane outright or in marital trust, even w/DSUEA, their combined AEA would be capped at  two exclusion amounts ($10.5 million, not adjusting for inflation increases) – a potential  loss of over $2 million in estate tax.18    15 IRC §2010(c)(5); Treas. Temp. Reg. §20.2010-2T(a) 16 If there is no executor, those in possession may file, but that may be a mess for many reasons. IRC §2203. Co- executors must ALL sign the return and agree to election or it is not valid. Treas. Reg. §20.6018-2 17 Strangely enough, there may be a difference here between a testamentary and living trust. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(6); HCFA Transmittal 64 § 3259.1(A)(1) 18 It appears from new regulations that DSEU has its own serial marriage loophole, though. If John left assets outright to Jane and she then gifts $5.25 million after John dies, she retains her own $5.25 exclusion, and when Husband #2 dies, she can gift another $5.25 million while retaining her own exclusion, ad infinitum. 7 12) Portability  only  helps  when  there  is  a  surviving  spouse.    It  may  not  work  in  a  simultaneous  death  situation,  whereas  a  bypass  trust  with  proper  funding  or  a  simultaneous death clause imputing John as the first to die and Jane as survivor would.19      Example:  John has $8 million in assets, Jane $2.5 million.  There is no community  property.  John believes the popular press and thinks he can rely on portability and the  DSUEA to kick in and shelter their $10.5 million.  But, John and Jane are in a tragic  accident together.  Neither John nor Jane has a surviving spouse.  John’s estate cannot  elect to use $2.75 million of Jane’s wasted Basic Exclusion Amount and now their  family needlessly pays a tax on John’s estate of $1,100,000 ($2.75 million excess times  40%).        13) Tax Apportionment under §2207A and state law shafts the first to die’s children by  relying on portability.  Example: H has $10 million, W has $10 million.  H dies, leaving  assets in a QTIP for W to “get a second step up”, believing his kids are assured equal  treatment and protection via QTIP ‐ $5 million+ DSUE is ported.  W dies with $10 million+  applicable exclusion amount (AEA), but $20 million estate.  Approximately $4 million  estate tax due (or more, depending on the state).  Guess whose kids pay the tax?  That’s  right – the first to die’s kids (H’s QTIP) pay ALL of the federal estate tax (and probably  much more of any state estate tax if not all), not half or pro‐rata as some may expect.  19 See Treas. Reg. §20.2056(c)-2(e) – had John’s will/trust had an A/B split or QTIPable trust with a simultaneous death clause stating that Jane is deemed to have survived him that would have overridden the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act and the IRS would respect the marital trust and hence add enough assets to Jane’s estate to use both exemptions. When the order of death can be determined, you cannot simply change the order in the Will/Trust for “surviving spouse” purposes. See Estate of Lee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2007-371. If we include a presumption that Jane dies first, will the IRS respect John as a “surviving spouse” for purposes of DSUEA? Probably, but we have no guidance yet – temporary regs do not mention this issue. Note – I have not verified whether this issue is addressed in final regulations issued in 2013 after this was written. 8